Bold and unapologetic commentary on race, religion, politics, and everything in between. Viewer discretion is advised.

Black to the Future

For years, I have contended that Republicans will never be viable with blacks until they are able to cease in their deeply internal anti-black agenda. But, while broadcasting that message to Conservatives, Democrats have been looking the other way.

One of the political highlights of the weekeend involves Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the problem he apparently has with people of…uh…Negro decent. In a book set to be released this week, authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann noted the following from Sen. Reid regarding then-Senator Obama:

[Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

Believe it or not, however, the purpose of this post is not to crucify Reid. Not entirely, anyway. Instead, I’d like to deconstruct his thoughts/comments, and examine them for what they are: a precursor to White Supremacy.

(1) To an extent, I actually agree with Reid. Yep. I said it. The sad and painful truth in this country is that black people with lighter skin and more ‘proper’ sounding dialect achieve mainstream validation far more than darker people or folks who speak with a “Negro dialect.” Let’s examine them individually:

First, the issue of skin color has been at the forefront of race relations for centuries. Dating back to slavery, preferential treatment and social acceptance was based on how close to white a person’s skin color was. Reid was merely bringing attention to something we already knew. For that matter, even we (black folks) reinforce the light-skinned/dark-skinned dichotomy to this very day.

As far as language goes, again – this is also something many of us are already vastly aware of. As a product of Gifted programs at school, I was often accused of “talking white” simply because of my ability to use more than common words, to use proper pronounciation, and to shift vocal intonation to sound…well, “white.” Growing up in the predominately-black, mostly urban North-side of Flint, this was unacceptable and largely excoriated by black folks. With whites, however, I was a marvel to behold. “You speak so well” was what I often heard. To me, they were parenthetically saying “You speak so well…for a black person.”

(2) All of that notwithstanding, Sen. Reid’s statements represent a patronizing and ironic type of racism (perhaps even uninformed racism) that has become a staple of the Democratic party. Though ostensibly being committed to offering the voice of morality, social justice, and liberalism, it’s not uncommon to see Democrats exhibiting racist behavior as offensive – if not more offensive – as the folks on the right. People like Reid may very well work in the interest of aiding black folks. But don’t be suprised if he doesn’t think black people have the capability to be on his level; nor would he necessarily want them to be. Engaging in socially beneficial activities for black folks is a lot different than not looking at their blackness as a liability.

(3) Folks on the right will have a field day with this story. Quite frankly, I would give them a pass in doing so. They will take Reid’s comments and either use them to bring Democrats to bear for demonstrating racism themselves or use his comments to justify their own thinking. This is all fine and dandy. After all, as much as we claim to have a desire for a “Post Racial America”, the fact of matter of is: we all form prejudices and we all lump certain people into certain stereotypes. That is simply human nature. Where we have more control over ourselves and our prejudices (and this is where I would put EVERYBODY to bear; not just Harry Reid) is how we carry them out.

In Senator Reid’s case (and, to be fair, the scores of talking heads on the right), it becomes a matter of not allowing your thoughts to dictate what you say and – more importantly – what you do. Truthfully, that is the source of ALL racial disconnect. We operate based on how we think about a person, instead of getting to know them. One of chief tenants of diversity is that any one of us could have something valuable to contribute; whether it’s the dark brotha who speaks with a “Negro dialect” or the white dude with a degree from Yale (by the way, what kind of “dialect” can we use to classify a certain former President of ours who just left the White House? Idiotic dialect?).

(4) The humanistic predispostion to prejudge each other aside, Reid’s use of the word “negro” is especially troubling. Truth be told, I think that’s the real source of the outrage. His observations about being unfavorably black in this country are spot on…as much as we may not want to publicly profess it. But tossing out a term like “negro”, especially in reference to language is taking a sentiment once thought to only be a vestige of our shameful history and giving it modern day implications. 1965, anybody?! It’s hard to learn from the mistakes of the past if we have not purged ourselves of the very thinking that gave life to that history.

The verdict? I wouldn’t compare Harry Reid to the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, and Becks of the world. I mean, the messages are equal in many respects, but those guys are just plain evil with both their intentions and their deliveries. But it would be unfair to dismiss Reid’s comments; indicting of American society as they may be. If in 2010 (or in this case I suppose, 2008) Reid can get wowed by the notion that a black man can be intelligent, that he can use proper English, and that certain “dialects” are not exclusive to certain groups, it’s clear that we have a long way to go in race relations.

Like this:

Related

Posts navigation

17 comments on “Black to the Future”

The minute I heard about this story, I expected the right to come out locked and loaded. But I would have never imagined such stinging retort coming from you, dude. If you recall, Sen. Reid has been on Obama’s side going all the way back to when Obama first joined the Senate. As a matter of fact, because of the work Obama did in the Senate, Reid was one of the people pushing hardest for him to run.

I don’t see how making an honest assessment about America is bad. I concede to the “negro” comment, but everything else was on the money. As I said, I expected this coming from the right. But from you? Reid used poor judgement in his word choice, no doubt. But his years of support for Obama outweigh a bad comment. Or at least they SHOULD. THAT’S the difference between Reid and those meatheads on the right.

At the very least, Sen. Reid demonstrated racial insensitivity. I don’t care what kind of “context” he made those comments in, Democrats should be held to the same standard as Republicans when it comes to matters of race, gender, etc. Had a leading Republican said something like this, we would have been calling for heads. In a way, I think people should be able to say whatever is on their minds. Honesty is a good way to start the dialogue. But again, the same standards should be applied all across the board.

Will somebody PLEASE tell me how John Cornyn and Michael “Honest Injun” Steele have become the spokespeople for what’s racist and what’s not? I’m sorry, but invoking Trent Lott and his racist supporting self into the conversation is nonsensical. Comparing Trent Lott’s consistent endorsement of a segregationist and Harry Reid’s comments is like comparing the North to the South.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why people just don’t get a VERY simple concept when examining race: there is a difference between racism based on ignorance and racism based on hatred and contemptment. Harry Reid’s statements = racism based on ignorance. Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond’s statements = racism based on hatred. To compare the two is obsurd!

Hey Dre,
Another great piece! As you know, I’ve made an issue of the whole “shades of black” thinking in the past, especially when it comes to black women. Every since I was in Emerson Jr. High, I’ve been particularly fascinated by the way black people view themselves and others in shades. I have to pat myself on the back for this one-I don’t believe that I have ever viewed (completely honestly) any black people as being any different based on their hue. But I have noticed that other people do. Lighter skinned blacks are viewed as better looking, smarter, less violent-even by other black people! A lot of white people also share this thinking. I had a very good friend in high school that was a “J.B. (Jet Black)”. He liked hanging with me, (he said) because I didn’t look down on him because of his darkness. I was baffled by the notion that I would even consider it. I can’t say with all honesty that I viewed him at that time as “the same as white” (it was the ’70’s, and I wasn’t aware of my own prejudice), but I definately didn’t view him as any different than other black people. As far as Reid goes, I think we all react a little too harshly on the issue as a whole. Yes, it is stupid and offensive, but I defy anyone to stand in all honesty and say that they haven’t been both at some time in their life. It was wrong to force Trent Lott out, (IMO) and it would be wrong to force Reid out (as much as I dislike him). I’m glad to see the issue of double standards brought up by the right, I’ve noticed and complained about it many times myself. The fact is; there is always an excuse for why people think bad behavior is only wrong by the other side. Justifying something doesn’t make it right. I.E. I rape your sister because you raped mine. Yes, it’s justified, yes, I could even say you started it. But, it’s hard to escape the fact that we are both rapists and wrong. The argument that Strom Thurmond’s statement was soooo much worse implies that we can see into his heart and Reids. The fact is, nobody really knows. Reid should be admonished for his stupidity and if the voters of Nevada think that this is another reason to vote him out-then so be it. But that should be it.

P.S. How did you feel about Bill Clinton’s statement on Obama that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”?

thehc :
P.S. How did you feel about Bill Clinton’s statement on Obama that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”?

Great point @ Cynthia and thehc. If Republicans REALLY want to espouse the double standard thing, why are they using Harry Reid – an Obama supporter, and not Bill Clinton who has been decidedly against Obama since day one? When it comes to Republicans and identifying racism, they just don’t have a clue.

Hi Tera,
I’ll take a shot at answering that for you. They want to force Harry out as a payback for what happened to Trent Lott. There isn’t much that they can do to Clinton, but they throw it out as a sidebar to help bring his legacy down (even further).